Queer Logic

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The homosexual-hater is a reminder to Gay Wired just how important it is to win elections:

Justice Scalia's Anti-Gay Comments are Reminder of Need for Fair-Minded Legislators

(Washington, D.C.) - Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese has released a statement condemning comments Justice Antonin Scalia made recently at a Swiss law school claiming there is no Constitutional right to "homosexual conduct."

"Justice Scalia stubbornly refuses to see that all Americans have a right to liberty and privacy under the law," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Justice Scalia was dangerously out of step with Americans in 2003 when the Supreme Court decided this question and he remains so today.

"This is just the latest example of why it's so critical that fair-minded Americans think of the Court when they head to the ballot box. With the Supreme Court tipping further to the right, these sentiments could one day become reality."

According to a clip aired on CNN, on March 8, 2006, Justice Scalia told students at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland:

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

This article simply highlights the ignorance of activist partisans who refuse to accept the role of Supreme Court justices as interpreters of the Constitution instead of guardians of society's moral values.

Here we have a justice who is labeled "anti-gay" because he can't find a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy in the U.S. Constitution. But Justice Scalia believes the Constitution fails to protect the right to "privacy" of any kind, so natural that includes gay sex and heterosexual sodomy. Following the logic of the author, Justice Scalia must also be "anti-straight."

There's a reason why the framers left out a right to privacy in the Constitution, and one of the more obvious explanations is that crimes can be committed in a zone of privacy and should be regulated by the states. Such crimes that can take place include possession of child pornography, illegal weapons, illegal drugs, prostitution and gambling. If the state can regulate these activities (and most agree kiddy porn is a bad thing) then it can also regulate -- according to Justice Scalia though not by the Court's majority -- abortion, contraceptives, and homosexual sodomy.